HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
November 18, 2025 Tuesday 3:45 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:45 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Board of Canvassers and Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agendas)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:08:12
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
wildfire mitigation, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other
items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: Presentation on Homelessness ~ 4:00 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the State of Utah Office of Homeless Services
about recent updates pertaining to homelessness, including a proposed homeless campus
that would be located in Salt Lake City and winter overflow plans.
For more information on this item visit tinyurl.com/HomelessnessSLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Informational: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions ~ 4:40 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing and provide direction on options to update and expand
the definition of family in zoning code as it relates to the number of unrelated people
permitted to live in one home. The Council recently declared an intent to increase or
eliminate the current maximum number as part of the City's work to improve access to
affordable housing.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Ordinance: Water Conservation and Land Use Element-
General Plan Amendment to Plan Salt Lake ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would adopt the plan Water
Conservation and Land Use Planning. The proposal would formally integrate the City’s
land use plans with the City's 2022 Water Master Plan. The proposal would also update
the City’s General Plan to comply with Utah State Code 10-9a-403, which mandates the
inclusion of a water element in Plan Salt Lake by December 31, 2025. This proposal is
citywide.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
5.Ordinance: Parking Dimensions and Off-Street Parking
Standards Manual Update ~ 5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend various sections of
Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code relating to parking dimensions and off-street parking
standards. The proposal would clarify driveway parking eligibility for single-family, two-
family, and townhome-type dwellings, expand tandem parking allowances, and update
parking space dimensions to align with current engineering standards. The proposed
changes will align the City parking requirements with S.B. 181 and H.B. 368. Other
sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 9, 2025
6.Informational: Climate Forward SLC Plan Update ~ 5:40 p.m.
25 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Sustainability about the
Climate Forward SLC Plan, an update to Salt Lake City’s climate strategy. The
Department is in the early stages of developing the plan and is seeking feedback from the
Council. Formal adoption of the plan is anticipated in 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
7.Board Appointment: Library Board – Janice Kimball ~ 6:05 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Janice Kimball, resident of District 5, prior to considering
appointment to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
8.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board - Austin Whitehead ~ 6:10 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Austin Whitehead, resident of District 5, prior to considering
appointment to the PNUT Board for a term ending November 18, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
9.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board - Thomas Merrill ~ 6:15 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Thomas Merrill, resident of District 4, prior to considering
appointment to the PNUT Board for a term ending November 18, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
10.Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board - Christian Chavez ~ 6:20 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Christian Chavez, resident of District 4, prior to considering
appointment to the PNUT Board for a term ending November 18, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
13.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual.
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining.
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration, or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms.
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration, or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms.
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale, and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale.
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems.
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does
hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt
Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have
indicated interest.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
Administrative
Updates
November 18, 2025
www.slc.gov/feedback/
and
shape.slc.gov
Community Engagement Highlights
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlacePublic Lands
337 Pocket Park (D4)
•Public Survey Live (ShapeSLC)
Allen Park (D7)
•Under Construction
Backman Community Open Space (D1)
•Grand Opening November 20,
12:30pm
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlacePlanning
Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Plan (D3)
•Draft plan in January
•Capitol Hill Community Plan on ShapeSLC
2100 South Station Area Plan (D5)
•Rolled into Central Community Plan
Rio Grande District Downtown Plan (D2)
•Planning Commission recommended
adoption
Northwest Community Plan (D1,D2)
•Public input on the plan is ongoing
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com
Planning
Thriving in PlaceCRA & Sustainability
Ballpark Next (D5)
•Zoning change in process
Climate Forward SLC
•Survey closed 1000 responses
•New survey open until December 12th
Salt Lake City Council MeetingNovember 18, 2025
Reimagining Hope: A Bold, Transformative Approach—The Utah Campus
Welcome
The Utah Campus Mission, Vision, Objective
Latest Updates
•Announced location site – Sept. 3, 2025
•Submitted funding request – September 2025
•Selected architect – November 2025
Campus Location
•2520 N 2200 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84116
•15.85-acre parcel
•Planned to operate as a “hub and
spoke” system, where individuals can
Step In to access core services at a
centralized hub, and once stabilized
and ready to Step Up, they can Step
Out to be connected efficiently to
additional specialized resources
across the community: the spokes.
Architect Selection
•AJC Architects
•known for its emphasis on
sustainable and innovative design
•record of success, expertise,
collaborative approach, and
innovative ideas
•has designed numerous facilities
supporting vulnerable populations:
the Geraldine E. King Community
Resource Center, Gail Miller
Community Resource Center, and
the Pamela Atkinson Community
Resource Center
Next Steps•Involve public and private
organizations to determine:
-Security plan
-Transportation plan
-Campus aesthetics
•Hire a general contractor
•Secure funding
•Coordinate with resource
partners in the system
Sign up for updates &learn more at
homelesscampus.utah.gov
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:November 18, 2025
RE: Reviewing Household Occupancy Definitions
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council initiated a legislative action in April 2025 asking the Administration to review and recommend
potential changes to City code as it relates to the number of unrelated people permitted to live in one home.
This would potentially increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated people living together in a
dwelling unit.
Planning staff will update the Council on progress with this intent, provide options for consideration, and
ask for Council direction on how to proceed. Planning will take this direction and begin the text
amendment process.
Goal of the briefing: Provide direction to the Administration for moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if changing the number of unrelated people
allowed to live together could impact federal funds for affordable housing.
2. Are deed restrictions required for state or federal affordable housing funds?
POTENTIAL STRAW POLLS
Planning staff is looking to the Council for direction on how to proceed. They provided three options for the
Council to consider.
1. Does the Council support removing the occupancy limit and not differentiating between related and
unrelated people? (Option 3 below.)
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
2. Does the Council support maintaining the current family definition and increase the number of
unrelated people living together to five? (Option 1 below.)
3. Does the Council support increasing the number of unrelated people living together and allow a
combination of family types? (Option 2 below.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The current definition of “family” in City code is separated into three parts:
Related people living together as a household,
Not more than three unrelated people living together as a household, and
Two unrelated people and their children living together as a household.
Under the current code, which has been in place since at least 1995, people who are related are not allowed
to live in the same housing unit as unrelated people. The rules differ depending on the relationship of a
dwelling’s residents. Planning staff provided a scenario of a married couple wanting to rent a bedroom or
level of their house to another couple to whom they are not related. Another example is a family of four
related people wanting to rent an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual. Neither of these would be
allowed under existing City code.
Since the first City code adopted in 1927, there have been several definitions of “family.” These range from
any number of people living together as a household and doing their cooking on the premises, to any
number of related people, to the current code that does not allow more than three unrelated people living
together in a household.
In the transmittal Planning staff stated “The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to
regulate population density and to separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates
that these purposes are achievable by defining a family.”
Enforcement
When the City receives a complaint about the number of unrelated people living within a dwelling,
enforcement can be difficult. The burden of proof that occupants of a dwelling are not related is on the
complainant or City enforcement. When asked for evidence of a relationship amongst residents, the
property may or may not provide proof. If no proof is provided, the complaint case is closed.
Some cities have changed their definition of family and are now enforcing on other neighborhood impacts
such as excess garbage and storage, noise, illegal parking, and yard maintenance rather than relationships
of the property’s occupants. These impacts are easier to verify and enforce, and do not differentiate
between owners and renters.
Parking concerns such as vehicles parked illegally and limited on- or off-street parking are frequently cited
in complaints about the number of people living in a home. Planning noted these are not exclusive to
households with unrelated people. Families may have several vehicles and use the garage for storage,
resulting in some being parked on the street. Enforcement efforts are focused on illegal parking in general
and not differentiating between households of related and unrelated people.
Potential Options
Planning staff provided the following three options for the Council to consider.
Option 1
Page | 4
Maintain the current family definition but increase the number of unrelated people living together to five.
While this is the easiest option, it does not address issues with the current code. These include
differentiating between enforcement of related and unrelated residents of a home and limiting enforcement
on the number of unrelated people living together to cases where documentation showing residents’
relationships is provided.
Option 2
Option 3
Other Considerations
family for
occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bathroom
facilities. The term “dwelling” excludes living space within hotels, bed and breakfast
establishments, shared housing developments boarding houses and lodging houses. (Emphasis
added.)
Family Definitions from Other Cities
City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other
Bountiful Up to 4
Page | 4
Draper Any number of people
living as a single
housekeeping unit
Logan Up to 2 Plus children
Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus children
Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children
Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children
St. George Up to 4 Two plus children Related + 1 unrelated
South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated
to have off-street parking
It is interesting to note that State code prohibits cities with a university from limiting occupancy of
unrelated people to less than three, and cities without a university to less than four. The reason for cities
with a university having a lower limit than cities without is unknown.
Cities outside Utah
City Number of Unrelated Related + Unrelated Other
Boise Any number of people
living as a single
housekeeping unit.
Denver Up to Five Plus children Increases for elderly
people, those with a
disability
Phoenix Group of unrelated
people living together as
a single housekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit
Portland Up to five Any number of related
people plus up to five.
Reno Anu number of people in
a single household
Sacramento Two or more people who
have established ties and
familiarity with one
another (regardless of
whether related or not by
blood, marriage or
adoption) that live
together as a single
household.
Limits other types of
residential land uses
(fraternities, sororities,
specialty housing).
Seattle Up to eight unrelated
people.
Page | 5
Spokane Up to six unrelated
people.
Related households may
also have up to six
unrelated people.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council Work Session
November 18, 2025
ZONING DEFINITION OF
FAMILY
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
“I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to
review and recommend potential changes to the definition of family in City
code that would increase or eliminate the maximum number of unrelated
people living together in a dwelling unit. It is a priority of this council to utilize
available tools to facilitate affordable housing for (or reduce barriers to)
those who want to live in Salt Lake City.”
CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Essentially the
same as today’s
definition
Any number of
people living as a
single household
unit
DEFINITION OF FAMILY OVER TIME
1927 1949 1955 1978
Any number of
people living as a
single household
unit
Collective body of
people living
together with
some domestic
bond
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
•Any number of related people;
•Two unrelated people and their
children; or
•Up to three unrelated people
CURRENT CODE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
Hard to prove if people are related.
Prohibits certain living arrangement,
like shared housing and co-living.
Prevents more people from sharing
housing costs (if unrelated).
WHY CHANGE?
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
UTAH CITIES
City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other
Ogden Up to 3 Two people plus
children
Provo Up to 3 Up to 3 plus children
Sandy Up to 4 Two plus children
St. George Up to 4 Two plus children related +1 unrelated
South Salt Lake Up to 4 Requires each unrelated to have
off street parking
Bountiful Up to 4
Logan Up to 2 Plus children
Draper Any number of people living as
a single housekeeping unit.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division
WESTERN CITIES
City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other
Boise Any number of people living as a
single housekeeping unit.
Reno Any number of people in a single
household
Denver Up to 5 Plus children Increases for elderly people, those
with disability
Phoenix group of unrelated people living
together as a single housekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit
Portland Up to 5 Any # of related people
plus up to 5 unrelated
Sacramento two or more people who have
established ties and familiarity with
one another (regardless of whether
related or not by blood, marriage or
adoption) that live together as a
single household
Limits other types of residential land
uses (fraternities, sororities, specialty
housing)
Seattle up to eight unrelated people
Spokane Up to 6 unrelated people Related households may
also have up to 6
unrelated people
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
1.Increase the number of unrelated people to more than
three
2.Increase the number of unrelated people and allow a
mix of related and unrelated people.
3.Any number of people living together as a single
household unit
THREE OPTIONS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Addressed
enforcement issue
related to related vs
unrelated
Reduces housing
costs for owner
occupied housing
Reduces housing cost
for renters
Treats related and
unrelated households
the same
Provides owners
more options
Option 1: increase unrelated people from 3 to 5
Option 2: same as one, but also allows a mix of related and unrelated people
Option 3: Any number of people living as a single household unit
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
10/02/2025
Date Sent to Council:
10/07/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Norris, Nick
E-mail
nick.norris@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
10/03/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
10/07/2025
Subject:
Zoning Definition of Family Text Amendment
New transmittal or
Revision
New transmittal
Revision
Revision Updates:
Missing page in original transmittal.
Additional Staff Contact:
Nick Norris nick.norris@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Nick Norris nick.norris@slc.gov
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
That the City Council provide direction on the options associated with the legislative intent to update the definition of family.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Not applicable at this time. A public process will follow once the council provides direction.
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In April 2025, the City Council adopted a legislative intent to consider
updating the definition of “family” in the zoning code. The council motion read
“I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to review and recommend
potential changes to the definition of family in City code that would increase or eliminate the
maximum number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit. It is a priority of this
council to utilize available tools to facilitate affordable housing for (or reduce barriers to) those
who want to live in Salt Lake City.”
The intent of this transmittal is to provide the City Council with options on how to proceed with this
legislative intent and provide direction on which option the Planning Division should proceed. After
directions are provided, the Planning Division will begin processing a text amendment.
Zoning Definition of Family
The term “family” is an integral part of the housing definitions and determines the type of housing and the
occupancy of a dwelling. The current definition has three parts: a definition for related people living as a
single household, a definition of unrelated people living as a single household, and a definition of two
unrelated people and their children living as a single household. All households must fit one of the
definitions to occupy a dwelling in Salt Lake City.
Current Definition:
FAMILY:
A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship,
including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit;
or
B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption,
or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or
C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, residential support
dwelling, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.
The definition creates different rules based on the relationship of the occupants of a dwelling. It also
prohibits the mixing of unrelated and related individuals except for the children of two unrelated people.
The current definition limits living arrangements within a single dwelling and limits housing options,
including shared housing and co-living.
HISTORY
The term family has been a defined term since the first zoning code was adopted in 1927. Since that time,
the definition has changed several times.
• 1927: “Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their
cooking on the premises.”
• 1949: Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their
cooking on the premises, independent of and separated from any other group or family.”
• 1955: An individual ,doing his own cooking, and living upon the premises as a separate
housekeeping unit, or a collective body of persons doing, their own cooking and living together
upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit in a domestic bond based upon birth, marriage,
or other domestic bond, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house1 lodging
house, club, fraternity or hotel.
• 1978: shall mean one (1) person living alone or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage or adoption, according to the laws of the State of Utah; or a group not to exceed three
(3) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit for which a lawfully located
off-street parking space is provided for each such person; such group to be distinguished from a
group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel.
The current definition of family has been in the zoning code since at least 1995. It is a typical definition
of family found in zoning codes throughout the country.
Over time, the concept of what constitutes a family has changed. Some cities are also considering
whether zoning should be used to differentiate between dwellings occupied by owners versus those
occupied by renters. For example, any number of related people may occupy a single dwelling, regardless
of the number of bedrooms, off-street parking spaces, or overall size of the dwelling. Renters are limited;
in Salt Lake City up to three unrelated people may occupy a single dwelling. There is no known basis for
why this number is set at three people, however Utah Code does require cities with universities within
their boundaries to allow at least three unrelated people to occupy a dwelling.
PURPOSE
The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to
separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by
defining a family. The Salt Lake City zoning code’s history of defining family demonstrates that while
the city was growing through the 1940s, the definition did not separate related and unrelated people.
However, when the city’s population was shrinking after 1950, the definition did regulate related and
unrelated people differently. While there is no clear reason for this change, it likely was due to
demographic change as households moved to the growing suburbs. The intent was likely to limit the
number of unrelated individuals that occupy a single dwelling.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcing the definition of family is challenging due to the challenges with collecting evidence regarding
the relationship of people living in a dwelling. The city does receive complaints about the number of
unrelated people living in a dwelling. The burden of proof falls on the complainant or the city to prove
that people are unrelated. This means that the city often must ask for proof of relationships. That
information is sometimes provided by the property owner. Other times, the city is unable to obtain
evidence to verify that the complaint is a violation of city code and the complaint is closed. A
fundamental question related to enforcing this ordinance is if the city should be asking for documentation
of people’s relationships when enforcing this ordinance?
Cities, and some states, are starting to change how zoning defines family for the following reasons:
• Difficulty in obtaining evidence to enforce the regulations.
• Rapid increases in housing costs are limiting housing that people can afford.
• Differing regulations for renters vs. owners and related households vs. unrelated households.
• The differences in social norms between a “functioning family” vs the cultural context of
“nuclear family.”
Cities that have modified the definition are focusing on other impacts. Instead of focusing on trying to
prove the relationship of building occupants, emphasis is put on enforcing nuisance related impacts that
are often associated with overcrowding of housing such as:
• Excess garbage/storage
• Noise
• Illegal Parking (including on landscaping)
• Yard Maintenance
These impacts are easier to document and verify and can occur whether a dwelling is occupied by owners
or renters. It is a common perception that renters create more impact than owners, but there have been no
studies of violations in Salt Lake City that validate the perception.
Parking is often included with complaints about the number of people occupying a dwelling. The
complaints may include parking on landscaping, on-street parking, or lack of off-street parking. However,
parking complaints are not reserved for households of unrelated people. For example, a family of five
may only have two off street parking spaces, but own three vehicles, use their garage for storage, store
recreational vehicles in the driveway, and park three vehicles on the street. A household of five unrelated
adults may own five vehicles, and park two in a garage or driveway, and park three on the street. The
impact is essentially the same and the zoning ordinance does not address street parking. The proper
enforcement action is to address any illegal parking. This approach addresses the impact and treats the
occupants the same. Other nuisances can be treated in the same manner: address the actual impact while
treating the occupancy of the building the same.
When these impacts are not present, some cities have decided that six or seven people living in a home,
regardless of relationship, are not impactful to neighbors or do not create health or safety issues, which
are generally the basis for zoning regulations.
Cities are also considering the impact to housing costs that impact renters. For example, if a single-family
dwelling has four bedrooms, but the home can only be rented to three people, it leaves one bedroom
unoccupied. If the impacts to neighbors can be addressed, that unused bedroom could possibly be rented
to a fourth occupant. Splitting the rent between four people will cost less than splitting the rent between
three people.
Housing occupancy is also changing as costs have increased, with co-housing and shared living
increasing in occupancy. Cities are updating zoning codes to provide more flexibility regarding housing
occupancy to help reduce housing costs. These types of living arrangements may include a married couple
renting out a bedroom or a level of the home to another couple, a related household of four people renting
out an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual, and other similar arrangements. The existing definition
of the Salt Lake City zoning code prohibits this from happening because it does not allow related people
to occupy the same dwelling as unrelated people.
Modifying the regulation is very low cost (basically a portion of staff costs for processing the application)
but has the potential to improve housing costs without any additional subsidy. This benefits those
demographics who may be more comfortable with having roommates, which tends to also be those with
the lowest incomes such as adult college students, young professionals, individuals working in various
service and hospitality industries, those on fixed incomes, and those who work in small, local businesses.
OPTIONS
Below are several options that the city could consider for changing the definition of family. Following the
options are a list of examples from other cities. The examples focus on how other zoning codes consider
unrelated people who occupy a dwelling. The City Council has already adopted a legislative intent to
modify the definition, so maintaining the existing definition is not listed as an option. However, the City
Council has the authority to not adopt a proposal after one of the below options goes through the required
process for a zoning text amendment.
Option 1: Maintain the existing definition but increase the number of unrelated people to five.
This option is technically the easiest option but does not address the issues associated with the current
definition, including putting Civil Enforcement in the position of only being able to enforce the code if
the occupants or owner is willing to provide evidence. It also does not address the issue of the zoning
code treating related and unrelated individuals differently. This option does not allow a household that
consists of related individuals to include unrelated individuals; in other words, a married couple with one
child and two different unrelated individuals could not live in the same dwelling. Essentially, enforcement
remains the same, but the number of unrelated occupants increases by two people. This would make
housing cheaper by dividing rent by more people. Some property owners could see that as an opportunity
to increase rent if more people could occupy the dwelling.
Example(s):
• The household could include a married couple and any number of related family members but
could not include additional unrelated people.
• The household could include two unrelated people and their children but could not include
additional unrelated people.
• The household could have up to five unrelated people, such as two unrelated couples and one
additional person.
Option 2: Increase the number of unrelated people to 5 and allow households to include a combination of
family types
FAMILY: A family includes any combination of people who function as a single
household that may include people who are legally related, two unrelated people and
their children, and up to five unrelated people and the children of any of the individuals.
This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family;
Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family.
This option is like option 1 but intends to clarify the existing definition by allowing a combination of
related and unrelated individuals to occupy a dwelling in some instances and increasing the number of
unrelated people to five. This option would enable related individuals to rent multiple unused bedrooms
within their dwelling if they chose something that the existing definition prohibits. This option would not
address the issue of determining if the occupants of a dwelling are related.
Example: A household could include:
• a related couple,
• any number of their children, parents or other related persons, and
• up to five additional unrelated people and their children.
Option 3: Simplify the definition by removing the occupant limits and treat occupants the same,
regardless of the relationship.
FAMILY: Any number of people living together as a single household in the same
dwelling. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two
Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family land uses.
This change would remove the issue of the city having to ask for proof of relationship or the number of
people living in a dwelling. Instead, enforcement would have to focus on impacts that can be documented
without relying on the occupants or the owner. There is a risk of overcrowding due to multiple people
occupying each bedroom in a dwelling. This approach would essentially go back to the definition the city
used before 1950.
The term household may also need to be defined, unless the city is comfortable relying on the definition
that is in Webster’s dictionary, which includes this as one of the definitions: a social unit composed of
those living together in the same dwelling. There are multiple definitions of the term as a noun in
Webster’s Dictionary so it might make interpreting the code easier by adding this definition.
In addition, this definition may want to include more information about the physical or functional aspects
of a family to improve clarity when enforcing the code. For example, adding wording such as “…as a
single household where all occupants have access to a kitchen and bathroom.” This could also be
addressed by updating the definition of the various dwelling types so the terms focus on the physical
aspects or function of the land use, not as much on the occupants. This type of fine tuning of the option
will occur if this option is selected to proceed.
Example: Under this definition there are countless options that would likely be dictated by the size of the
dwelling.
Other Considerations
There are several definitions that could also be impacted by changing the definition of family, regardless
of the options above. Consideration should be given to ensure that changing the definition doesn’t impact
other land uses.
• Shared Housing: this is a defined use that does not use the term family but is related. This land
use essentially authorizes dormitory and single room occupancies. Shared housing has specific
provisions that apply that other housing types do not have. Changing the definition of family
essentially authorizes any housing to function this way: renting out a single bedroom while
sharing common areas, like a kitchen and bathroom. This is basically what occurs now when a
single-family dwelling is rented to unrelated individuals.
• Dwelling, Rooming (Boarding) House: This is a type of dwelling that allows more than three
unrelated individuals to occupy a building (or multiple buildings) in any arrangement provided
the stay is for at least one month. This land use is commonly found near the University of Utah
and Westminster College. It is typically only allowed in multi-family and mixed-use zoning
districts but may not be required if the definition of family is changed.
• Dwelling: The definition of dwelling includes the term family, but other housing types that use
the word “dwelling” in the name do not fit the definition of family (such as Dwelling, Group
Home). The term is also an integral part of classifying different housing types. Consideration
should be given to fixing this so that there is no confusion on how the definition of family
impacts other definitions of dwelling.
o Current Definition: DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for
residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-
contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living
space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments
boarding houses and lodging houses.
o Possible Definition: DWELLING: a building or portion thereof, allocated for residential
use where each unit contains at a minimum, sleeping facilities, a kitchen, and bathroom
intended for occupancies greater than 30 consecutive days.
Examples
Below are examples from cities within Utah and from other western states that are larger than other cities
in Utah.
In Utah, state code prohibits cities from having a family definition that limits occupancy of unrelated
people to no less than three if the city has a university within its boundaries and no less than four
otherwise. It is unknown why cities that have a university and therefore a higher likelihood of having a
higher number of college aged individuals would have a lower requirement than cities that may have
fewer college aged individuals. The typical college aged individual may be more likely to have
roommates and allowing more than three unrelated people could lower the monthly housing costs because
it could be split between more people.
Family Definition Number of people (Cities in Utah)
as a single housekeeping
Family Definition Number of people (Cities outside of Utah)
Major cities in the western United States tend to allow more than three unrelated people in a dwelling.
Colorado recently passed statewide legislation that prohibited cities from treating related and unrelated
people differently in terms of housing occupancy, but the Denver code online shows a cap of up to five
people. Other cities considered allowing a maximum of five, with Bosie, Reno, and Sacramento not
having a maximum. Boise, Portland, Sacramento, and Spokane recently made major zoning reforms to
address housing issues and have included modifying the definition of family as part of those zoning
reforms.
There are likely cities in the western United States that have definitions like Salt Lake City’s. Below is a
summary of select cities and how the definition of family is addressed.
City Number of Unrelated Related + unrelated Other
Boise Any number of people living
as a single housekeeping
living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a
have established ties and
familiarity with one another
(regardless of whether
related or not by blood,
marriage or adoption) that
live together as a single
residential land uses
(fraternities, sororities,
specialty housing)
may also have up to
PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
09/24/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/30/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Norris, Nick
E-mail
nick.norris@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
09/29/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/29/2025
Subject:
Zoning Definition of Family Text Amendment
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
That the City Council provide direction on the options associated with the legislative intent to update the definition of family.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
Not applicable at this time. A public process will follow once the council provides direction.
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In April 2025, the City Council adopted a legislative intent to consider
updating the definition of “family” in the zoning code. The council motion read
“I move the council adopt a legislative action asking the administration to review and recommend
potential changes to the definition of family in City code that would increase or eliminate the
maximum number of unrelated people living together in a dwelling unit. It is a priority of this
council to utilize available tools to facilitate affordable housing for (or reduce barriers to) those
who want to live in Salt Lake City.”
The intent of this transmittal is to provide the City Council with options on how to proceed with this
legislative intent and provide direction on which option the Planning Division should proceed. After
directions are provided, the Planning Division will begin processing a text amendment.
Zoning Definition of Family
The term “family” is an integral part of the housing definitions and determines the type of housing and the
occupancy of a dwelling. The current definition has three parts: a definition for related people living as a
single household, a definition of unrelated people living as a single household, and a definition of two
unrelated people and their children living as a single household. All households must fit one of the
definitions to occupy a dwelling in Salt Lake City.
Current Definition:
FAMILY:
A. One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal guardianship,
including foster children, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit;
or
B. A group of not more than three (3) persons not related by blood, marriage, adoption,
or legal guardianship living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit; or
C. Two (2) unrelated persons and their children living together as a single
housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.
The term "family" shall not be construed to mean a club, group home, residential support
dwelling, a lodge or a fraternity/sorority house.
The definition creates different rules based on the relationship of the occupants of a dwelling. It also
prohibits the mixing of unrelated and related individuals except for the children of two unrelated people.
The current definition limits living arrangements within a single dwelling and limits housing options,
including shared housing and co-living.
HISTORY
The term family has been a defined term since the first zoning code was adopted in 1927. Since that time,
the definition has changed several times.
• 1927: “Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their
cooking on the premises.”
• 1949: Any number of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit, and doing their
cooking on the premises, independent of and separated from any other group or family.”
• 1955: An individual ,doing his own cooking, and living upon the premises as a separate
housekeeping unit, or a collective body of persons doing, their own cooking and living together
upon the premises as a separate housekeeping unit in a domestic bond based upon birth, marriage,
or other domestic bond, as distinguished from a group occupying a boarding house1 lodging
house, club, fraternity or hotel.
• 1978: shall mean one (1) person living alone or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage or adoption, according to the laws of the State of Utah; or a group not to exceed three
(3) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit for which a lawfully located
off-street parking space is provided for each such person; such group to be distinguished from a
group occupying a boarding house, lodging house, club, fraternity or hotel.
The current definition of family has been in the zoning code since at least 1995. It is a typical definition
of family found in zoning codes throughout the country.
Over time, the concept of what constitutes a family has changed. Some cities are also considering
whether zoning should be used to differentiate between dwellings occupied by owners versus those
occupied by renters. For example, any number of related people may occupy a single dwelling, regardless
of the number of bedrooms, off-street parking spaces, or overall size of the dwelling. Renters are limited;
in Salt Lake City up to three unrelated people may occupy a single dwelling. There is no known basis for
why this number is set at three people, however Utah Code does require cities with universities within
their boundaries to allow at least three unrelated people to occupy a dwelling.
PURPOSE
The purpose of zoning regulations defining family is primarily to regulate population density and to
separate incompatible land uses. There is no data that demonstrates that these purposes are achievable by
defining a family. The Salt Lake City zoning code’s history of defining family demonstrates that while
the city was growing through the 1940s, the definition did not separate related and unrelated people.
However, when the city’s population was shrinking after 1950, the definition did regulate related and
unrelated people differently. While there is no clear reason for this change, it likely was due to
demographic change as households moved to the growing suburbs. The intent was likely to limit the
number of unrelated individuals that occupy a single dwelling.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcing the definition of family is challenging due to the challenges with collecting evidence regarding
the relationship of people living in a dwelling. The city does receive complaints about the number of
unrelated people living in a dwelling. The burden of proof falls on the complainant or the city to prove
that people are unrelated. This means that the city often must ask for proof of relationships. That
information is sometimes provided by the property owner. Other times, the city is unable to obtain
evidence to verify that the complaint is a violation of city code and the complaint is closed. A
fundamental question related to enforcing this ordinance is if the city should be asking for documentation
of people’s relationships when enforcing this ordinance?
Cities, and some states, are starting to change how zoning defines family for the following reasons:
• Difficulty in obtaining evidence to enforce the regulations.
• Rapid increases in housing costs are limiting housing that people can afford.
• Differing regulations for renters vs. owners and related households vs. unrelated households.
• The differences in social norms between a “functioning family” vs the cultural context of
“nuclear family.”
Cities that have modified the definition are focusing on other impacts. Instead of focusing on trying to
prove the relationship of building occupants, emphasis is put on enforcing nuisance related impacts that
are often associated with overcrowding of housing such as:
• Excess garbage/storage
• Noise
• Illegal Parking (including on landscaping)
• Yard Maintenance
These impacts are easier to document and verify and can occur whether a dwelling is occupied by owners
or renters. It is a common perception that renters create more impact than owners, but there have been no
studies of violations in Salt Lake City that validate the perception.
Parking is often included with complaints about the number of people occupying a dwelling. The
complaints may include parking on landscaping, on-street parking, or lack of off-street parking. However,
parking complaints are not reserved for households of unrelated people. For example, a family of five
may only have two off street parking spaces, but own three vehicles, use their garage for storage, store
recreational vehicles in the driveway, and park three vehicles on the street. A household of five unrelated
adults may own five vehicles, and park two in a garage or driveway, and park three on the street. The
impact is essentially the same and the zoning ordinance does not address street parking. The proper
enforcement action is to address any illegal parking. This approach addresses the impact and treats the
occupants the same. Other nuisances can be treated in the same manner: address the actual impact while
treating the occupancy of the building the same.
When these impacts are not present, some cities have decided that six or seven people living in a home,
regardless of relationship, are not impactful to neighbors or do not create health or safety issues, which
are generally the basis for zoning regulations.
Cities are also considering the impact to housing costs that impact renters. For example, if a single-family
dwelling has four bedrooms, but the home can only be rented to three people, it leaves one bedroom
unoccupied. If the impacts to neighbors can be addressed, that unused bedroom could possibly be rented
to a fourth occupant. Splitting the rent between four people will cost less than splitting the rent between
three people.
Housing occupancy is also changing as costs have increased, with co-housing and shared living
increasing in occupancy. Cities are updating zoning codes to provide more flexibility regarding housing
occupancy to help reduce housing costs. These types of living arrangements may include a married couple
renting out a bedroom or a level of the home to another couple, a related household of four people renting
out an unused bedroom to an unrelated individual, and other similar arrangements. The existing definition
of the Salt Lake City zoning code prohibits this from happening because it does not allow related people
to occupy the same dwelling as unrelated people.
Modifying the regulation is very low cost (basically a portion of staff costs for processing the application)
but has the potential to improve housing costs without any additional subsidy. This benefits those
demographics who may be more comfortable with having roommates, which tends to also be those with
the lowest incomes such as adult college students, young professionals, individuals working in various
service and hospitality industries, those on fixed incomes, and those who work in small, local businesses.
OPTIONS
Below are several options that the city could consider for changing the definition of family. Following the
options are a list of examples from other cities. The examples focus on how other zoning codes consider
unrelated people who occupy a dwelling. The City Council has already adopted a legislative intent to
modify the definition, so maintaining the existing definition is not listed as an option. However, the City
Council has the authority to not adopt a proposal after one of the below options goes through the required
process for a zoning text amendment.
Option 1: Maintain the existing definition but increase the number of unrelated people to five.
This option is technically the easiest option but does not address the issues associated with the current
definition, including putting Civil Enforcement in the position of only being able to enforce the code if
the occupants or owner is willing to provide evidence. It also does not address the issue of the zoning
code treating related and unrelated individuals differently. This option does not allow a household that
consists of related individuals to include unrelated individuals; in other words, a married couple with one
child and two different unrelated individuals could not live in the same dwelling. Essentially, enforcement
remains the same, but the number of unrelated occupants increases by two people. This would make
housing cheaper by dividing rent by more people. Some property owners could see that as an opportunity
to increase rent if more people could occupy the dwelling.
Example(s):
• The household could include a married couple and any number of related family members but
could not include additional unrelated people.
• The household could include two unrelated people and their children but could not include
additional unrelated people.
• The household could have up to five unrelated people, such as two unrelated couples and one
additional person.
Option 2: Increase the number of unrelated people to 5 and allow households to include a combination of
family types
FAMILY: A family includes any combination of people who function as a single
household that may include people who are legally related, two unrelated people and
their children, and up to five unrelated people and the children of any of the individuals.
This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two Family;
Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family.
This option is like option 1 but intends to clarify the existing definition by allowing a combination of
related and unrelated individuals to occupy a dwelling in some instances and increasing the number of
unrelated people to five. This option would enable related individuals to rent multiple unused bedrooms
within their dwelling if they chose something that the existing definition prohibits. This option would not
address the issue of determining if the occupants of a dwelling are related.
Example: A household could include:
• a related couple,
• any number of their children, parents or other related persons, and
• up to five additional unrelated people and their children.
Option 3: Simplify the definition by removing the occupant limits and treat occupants the same,
regardless of the relationship.
FAMILY: Any number of people living together as a single household in the same
dwelling. This definition only applies to the Dwelling, Single Family; Dwelling, Two
Family; Dwelling, Twin Home; and Dwelling, Multi-Family land uses.
This change would remove the issue of the city having to ask for proof of relationship or the number of
people living in a dwelling. Instead, enforcement would have to focus on impacts that can be documented
without relying on the occupants or the owner. There is a risk of overcrowding due to multiple people
occupying each bedroom in a dwelling. This approach would essentially go back to the definition the city
used before 1950.
The term household may also need to be defined, unless the city is comfortable relying on the definition
that is in Webster’s dictionary, which includes this as one of the definitions: a social unit composed of
those living together in the same dwelling. There are multiple definitions of the term as a noun in
Webster’s Dictionary so it might make interpreting the code easier by adding this definition.
In addition, this definition may want to include more information about the physical or functional aspects
of a family to improve clarity when enforcing the code. For example, adding wording such as “…as a
single household where all occupants have access to a kitchen and bathroom.” This could also be
addressed by updating the definition of the various dwelling types so the terms focus on the physical
aspects or function of the land use, not as much on the occupants. This type of fine tuning of the option
will occur if this option is selected to proceed.
Example: Under this definition there are countless options that would likely be dictated by the size of the
dwelling.
Other Considerations
There are several definitions that could also be impacted by changing the definition of family, regardless
of the options above. Consideration should be given to ensure that changing the definition doesn’t impact
other land uses.
• Shared Housing: this is a defined use that does not use the term family but is related. This land
use essentially authorizes dormitory and single room occupancies. Shared housing has specific
provisions that apply that other housing types do not have. Changing the definition of family
essentially authorizes any housing to function this way: renting out a single bedroom while
sharing common areas, like a kitchen and bathroom. This is basically what occurs now when a
single-family dwelling is rented to unrelated individuals.
• Dwelling, Rooming (Boarding) House: This is a type of dwelling that allows more than three
unrelated individuals to occupy a building (or multiple buildings) in any arrangement provided
the stay is for at least one month. This land use is commonly found near the University of Utah
and Westminster College. It is typically only allowed in multi-family and mixed-use zoning
districts but may not be required if the definition of family is changed.
• Dwelling: The definition of dwelling includes the term family, but other housing types that use
the word “dwelling” in the name do not fit the definition of family (such as Dwelling, Group
Home). The term is also an integral part of classifying different housing types. Consideration
should be given to fixing this so that there is no confusion on how the definition of family
impacts other definitions of dwelling.
o Current Definition: DWELLING: A building or portion thereof, which is designated for
residential purposes of a family for occupancy on a monthly basis and which is a self-
contained unit with kitchen and bathroom facilities. The term "dwelling" excludes living
space within hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, shared housing developments
boarding houses and lodging houses.
o Possible Definition: DWELLING: a building or portion thereof, allocated for residential
use where each unit contains at a minimum, sleeping facilities, a kitchen, and bathroom
intended for occupancies greater than 30 consecutive days.
Examples
Below are examples from cities within Utah and from other western states that are larger than other cities
in Utah.
In Utah, state code prohibits cities from having a family definition that limits occupancy of unrelated
people to no less than three if the city has a university within its boundaries and no less than four
otherwise. It is unknown why cities that have a university and therefore a higher likelihood of having a
higher number of college aged individuals would have a lower requirement than cities that may have
fewer college aged individuals. The typical college aged individual may be more likely to have
roommates and allowing more than three unrelated people could lower the monthly housing costs because
it could be split between more people.
Family Definition Number of people (Cities in Utah)
as a single housekeeping
Family Definition Number of people (Cities outside of Utah)
Major cities in the western United States tend to allow more than three unrelated people in a dwelling.
Colorado recently passed statewide legislation that prohibited cities from treating related and unrelated
people differently in terms of housing occupancy, but the Denver code online shows a cap of up to five
people. Other cities considered allowing a maximum of five, with Bosie, Reno, and Sacramento not
having a maximum. Boise, Portland, Sacramento, and Spokane recently made major zoning reforms to
address housing issues and have included modifying the definition of family as part of those zoning
reforms.
There are likely cities in the western United States that have definitions like Salt Lake City’s. Below is a
summary of select cities and how the definition of family is addressed.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Not Applicable
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:November 18, 2025
RE: Water Conservation and Land Use Element-General Plan Amendment to Plan Salt Lake
PLNPCM2025-00481
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about an amendment to Plan Salt Lake proposed by the Administration that
would integrate the City’s land use plans and the 2022 Water Conservation and Land Use Planning Plan
(found on pages 7-9 of the Administration’s transmittal). This would bring the City’s general plan, Plan
Salt Lake, into compliance with Utah State Code, which requires integrating a water element into the plan
by December 31, 2025. The proposed amendment fulfills this requirement.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its August 27, 2025 meeting and held a public hearing
at which one person spoke. The commenter suggested including more information about the Great Salt
Lake, using gray water, the diversity of lower water consuming turf grasses, and reducing per capita water
use. Public Utilities staff responded to the comments saying many of the topics mentioned are addressed in
the Water Conservation Plan, on which the Council is tentatively scheduled to receive a briefing at its
November 25, 2025 meeting.
The Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation for approval to the City
Council.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed plan amendment and determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Item Schedule:
Page | 3
Planning staff identified six key considerations related to the proposal, found on pages 2-5 of the Planning
Commission staff report, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning
Commission staff report.
Consideration 1 – The Effect of Current and Future Development on Water Demand and
Supply
Water Supply and Demand Plan (2022) is included in the proposal with projected
populations and water use based on three scenarios with varying degrees of water demand and
conservation. Impacts from drought, climate change, wildfire, and other water supply risks are considered
in this plan. The proposal recommends that the Water Supply and Demand Plan be updated every five
years. The Public Utilities Department manages this plan and the Water Conservation Plan, both of which
are being updated and are anticipated to go through the City adoption process in the coming months.
Consideration 2 – Methods to Reduce Water Consumption Per Capita
Avenues Plan definition of low density residential as up to five dwellings per acre, while the adjacent
Capitol Hill Plan defines low density residential as up to 15 dwellings per acre. Planning noted updating
the community plans and reducing the number of land use designations will help with future water
planning.
Consideration 3 – Opportunities to Reduce Water Consumption in City Operations
Page | 4
Public Utilities reviewed water use and efficiency on City properties in this report. Water conservation at
City facilities is primarily updating utilities and improving irrigation systems. The department plans and
budgets for infrastructure upgrades. Additionally, some funds from the parks and open space bonds will be
used to upgrade irrigation systems at several City parks. Information on park improvement projects is
available here.
Consideration 4 – Consideration of the Regional Water Conservation Goals
Scenario 1 – Water savings primarily by improved efficiency. Does not represent significant
changes in lifestyle or development patterns.
Scenario 2 – Additional water conservation efforts through partial conversion to higher-efficiency
household fixtures and lower water use landscaping methods.
Scenario 3 – Maximum likely conservation, including full conversion to both higher-efficiency
household fixtures and low water use landscaping methods.
Plan Salt Lake set a goal of achieving the goals in Scenario 2 of the Water Supply and Demand
Management Plan because the 2065 water conservation goals have already been met.
Consideration 5 – Consideration of the Regional Water Conservation Plans
Consideration 6 – Consideration of Policies Related to the Principles of Sustainable
Landscaping
Plan Salt Lake, which may result in future zoning changes.
DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
property owners’ responsibility for park strip landscaping, including installation, maintenance, repair or
replacement is in the current ordinance.
Page | 5
Sustainability recommended using low water consuming turf grass where it’s allowed and in high-use
public spaces, citing the potential cooling effects turf grass can have. They also recommended prioritizing
water for the tree canopy.
ANALYSIS OF FACTORS
Attachment C (pages 12-13) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines factors for general plan
updates that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Finding
Whether the proposal is consistent with citywide policies.Complies
Whether the proposal is consistent with the goals,
policies, or implementation actions of the general plan,
including applicable element plans.
Establishes a new
chapter into Plan Salt
Lake that addresses
water conservation and
land use planning.
Whether significant change has occurred that warrants
the creation of a new plan or an update to an adopted
plan.
Proposal is mandated
by changes to Utah code
requiring adoption of a
water plan element.
Whether the goals, policies, or implementation actions of
the plan to be amended have been achieved, are no
longer relevant to or capable of addressing the current
issues or needs of the neighborhood or the city, or are no
longer aligned with policies in citywide plans.
Proposal is a new
section to Plan Salt Lake
and does not replace
any outdated or
irrelevant policies or
goals.
For petitions submitted by a property owner, the extent,
effectiveness, and proportionality of the public benefit
proposed by the petitioner to the increase in
development potential if the proposal were to be adopted
by the city council.
Not applicable.
The potential for displacement of people who reside in
any housing that is within the boundary of the proposed
amendment and the plan offered by the petitioner to
mitigate displacement.
Not applicable (proposal
does not displace any
people or housing).
The potential for displacement of any business that is
located within the boundary of the proposed amendment
and the plan offered by the petitioner to mitigate
displacement.
Does not displace any
business but may result
in future regulations
that limit businesses
consuming large
amounts of water.
The potential impacts to properties in the immediate
vicinity of the proposal.
Proposal is likely to
result in additional
regulations that limit
water use, and it may
impact some properties
as a result.
Page | 6
The potential impacts on the city to provide safe drinking
water, storm water, and sewer to the property based on
the additional development potential of future
development.
Proposal is intended to
ensure the City can
provide adequate
drinking water, address
storm water impacts,
and treat wastewater to
benefit the Great Salt
Lake.
The potential impacts to public safety resources created
by the increase in development potential that may result
from the proposed amendment.
Ensuring safe and
adequate drinking
water is a benefit to
public safety.
The potential impacts to any other city service,
infrastructure, or resource that may be impacted by the
increase in development potential that may result from
the proposed amendment.
Proposal does not
increase development
potential in the city.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• April 21, 2025 – Petition initiated by Mayor Mendenhall.
• April 23, 2025 – Planning Commission briefed on project and Growing Water Smart initiative.
• May 19, 2025 – Proposal and background information posted on the Planning Division Open
House website. 45-day public notice and Utah general plan notices sent.
• July 9, 2025 – 45-day input period ended. No public comments received.
• August 13, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed.
• August 27, 2025 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• October 22, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council Briefing–November 18, 2025
PLNPCM2025-00481
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT //
GROWING WATER
SMART
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT IS GROWING WATER SMART?
Update general plan by end of 2025
Intent: Plan for the impact of land use on water conservation
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
COORDINATION NATION.
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
SIX KEY COMPONENTS
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
1.Effect of current & future development on water
demand and water infrastructure
SCENARIO 2:ADDITIONAL WATER CONSERVATION
SLC PU WATER SYSTEM AREA
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
2. Methods to reduce water consumption per capita.
•Develop consistent future land use designations
•Identify land uses with high water consumption
•Gain efficiencies with large water users
•Support decreased lot size standards
•As water supply reduces:
consider additional programs, policies and regulations that
can reduce water use
•Consider incentives for developments to lower water demand
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
3. Methods to reduce water in City Operations.
•Improving & updating utilities and irrigation
•Focus on park and golf course irrigation systems
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
4. Consideration of the regional water
conservation goals.
Water conservation state goals are set.
•Salt Lake regional goal: reduce per capita use over time
•SLC Public Utilities users reached state goal 40 years ahead of
target
•Identifying Scenario 2: increased levels of conservation
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
5. Consider city’s existing Water Conservation Plans
Cites existing plans:
•SLC Water Supply and Demand Management Plan
•SLC Water Conservation Plans
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY COMPONENTS
6. Consideration of policies related to sustainable landscaping.
•SLC implemented most principles of sustainable landscaping
•2024 SLC adopted most of the State’s landscaping recommendations
•More zoning ordinance amendments could result…
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT IS GROWING WATER SMART?
Update general plan by end of 2025
Intent: Plan for the impact of land use on water conservation
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
10/15/2025
Date Sent to Council:
10/22/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Bell, Michaela
E-mail
Michaela.Bell@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
10/15/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
10/22/2025
Subject:
PLNPCM2025-00481, Water Conservation and Land Use Element-General Plan amendment to Plan Salt Lake
Additional Staff Contact:
Laura Briefer laura.briefer@slc.gov
Presenters/Staff Table
Laura Briefer laura.briefer@slc.gov
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt the general plan amendment.
Background/Discussion
Mayor Mendenhall initiated a plan amendment to Plan Salt Lake, to formally integrate the city’s land use plans with the City's 2022 Water Master Plan. This proposal updates the city’s general plan to comply with Utah State Code 10-9a-403, which mandates the inclusion of a water element in Plan Salt Lake by December 31, 2025. Planning and Public Utilities have worked in conjunction on this amendment to ensure compliance but reference to both land use and water plans.
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This project has been through a public engagement process. The Planning Commission was briefed once on the amendment and held a subsequent public hearing where the commission recommended to the Council to adopt the amendment to the general plan. The Council has final decision making authority. The item must be adopted by the end of the year 2025, as per state code.
This page has intentionally been left blank
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 202__
(Adopting the Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan)
An ordinance adopting the Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan as part of
Salt Lake City’s general plan.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a hearing on August 27, 2025
on a petition to adopt the Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan as part of Salt Lake
City’s general plan as governed by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a; and
WHEREAS, at its August 27, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said
petition; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has
determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Adopting the Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan. That the
Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is
adopted as part of Salt Lake City’s general plan as governed by Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-
9a. The adoption of this plan serves to identify the goals and objectives identified within the
plan, all of which are subject to future budget appropriations.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
202__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 202__.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance adopting Water Conservation plan
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Katherine D. Pasker, Senior City Attorney
October 7, 2025
EXHIBIT “A”
Water Conservation and Land Use Planning plan
42 SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE
14/ WATER CONSERVATION AND LAND USE PLANNING
GUIDING PRINCIPLE/ Grow in a manner that ensures water supply meets demand and provides sufficient
redundancy to respond to water supply risks.
43SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE
14/ WATER CONSERVATION AND LAND USE PLANNING
POLICIES
1.Update water supply and demand plans every
five years, or as appropriate, to maintain an
understanding of the effect current development has
on water demand and water infrastructure needs.
2.Utilize current Conservation Plan strategies to
meet the Water Supply & Demand Plan goals.
3.Update community plans and zoning regulations
to reduce the amount of water demand and per
capita water use for future development.
•Develop consistent future land use regulations
across all community and small area plans
to better understand the impact future
development has on water demand and supply.
•Identify land uses with high water consumption
and develop water saving strategies.
•Support decreased lot size and
configuration standards.
•As supply availability reduces, consider
additional programs, policies, and regulations
that can reduce water use.
•Review allowed land uses in the zoning code
and consider prohibiting land uses that
consume large amounts of water.
•Consider incentives for new and existing
developments to utilize low-water demand
landscaping and fixtures.
•When needed, require new development to
contribute water to increase the supply of water.
4.Support zoning regulations that promote sustainable
landscaping practices to reduce outdoor water use
and stormwater runoff, including:
•Water wise landscaping that limits the use of
high-water consuming turf and prohibits turf
on steeper slopes, in small, landscaped areas,
and in park strips.
•Prioritize the maintenance, water,
and planting of trees.
•Reduce the amount of water used to irrigate
park strips within city rights of way through
elimination of overwatering and water waste.
•Promote the maintenance and update of
irrigation systems to reduce water waste.
•Establish regulations that reduce storm
water runoff, including appropriate grading,
landscaping, and limits on impervious surfaces.
5.Support actions that improve the City’s water
resiliency, including:
•Strategies identified in the current Water
Conservation Plan.
•Ensure water is conserved and used efficiently at
City facilities and operatus.
•Investments into the City’s water, stormwater, and
wastewater infrastructure.
•Strategies promoting the health of Great Salt Lake,
the City’s Wasatch Mountain watersheds, the
Jordan River, and its tributaries.
•Climate adaptation and mitigation.
Salt Lake City provides water services not only to
properties within the city boundaries, but to properties
outside of the city as well. This creates a great
responsibility to manage water resources responsibly
for current and future generations.
The City is also expected to grow significantly between
now through at least 2040. Planning our growth is
necessary to ensure that the city can provide clean,
safe drinking water for residents and visitors while also
ensuring water is available for businesses.
To accomplish this, the city will continue efforts to
reduce water demand and eliminate water waste,
through changing development patterns, reducing
overall water use, improving delivery systems, and
appropriately pricing the cost of water based on the
amount of water consumed.
The following policies and initiatives will help the city
ensure future residents, visitors, and businesses have
adequate water in the future.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE/ Grow in a manner
that ensures water supply meets demand
and provides sufficient redundancy to
respond to water supply risks.
2060 METRICS:
1.CITYWIDE PER CAPITA WATER USE.
44 SALT LAKE CITY | PLAN SALT LAKE
Salt Lake City Public Utilities provides water service to
areas outside the city that include other cities on the
eastern side of the valley, south of Salt Lake City. Public
Utilities prepares a new 40-year Long Range Water
Supply & Demand Plan approximately every five years,
with the most recent plan prepared in 2022, primarily
using 2018 data. The water demand projections are
based on the water service area population below.
In 2023 the service area used 154 gallons of water per
capita per day. This amount takes the daily water use
for all land uses (not just residential) and divides it by
the service area population. The population projections
for the service area are from the 2022 Water Supply &
Demand Plan.
Salt Lake City is expected to grow up to 272,468 people
by 2060, with the city’s water service area population
growing to 447,804. The anticipated demand, with the
regional goal reduction of 25%, will be 122,300-acre feet
of water. This exceeds the anticipated supply (during
dry years).
The current Water Supply & Demand Plan outlines three
conservation planning scenarios to test the ability of
the city’s water supply to reliably meet demand by
the year 2060.
•Scenario 1 - Water savings primarily by improved
efficiency. Does not represent significant changes
in lifestyle or development patterns.
•Scenario 2 - Additional water conservation
efforts through partial conversion to higher-
efficiency household fixtures and lower water use
landscaping methods.
•Scenario 3 - Maximum likely conservation,
including full conversion to both higher-
efficiency household fixtures and low water use
landscaping methods.
For planning purposes, the City is incorporating
Scenario 2, which includes increased water
conservation and the development of the City’s
remaining water rights by the year 2060.
The City also utilizes the current Conservation Plan,
which is informed by the Water Supply & Demand
Plan, for strategies to meet this goal. This is subject to
change, as long-range water supply and demand plans
are regularly updated to incorporate new information.
CONSIDERATION OF WATER CONSUMPTION
FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION
Source: 2022 Salt Lake City Water Supply & Demand Plan
Year
25% Reduction in Per
Capita Use in Acre Feet
(current state goal)
Conservation
Scenario 1 in
Acre Feet
Conservation
Scenario 2 in
Acre Feet
Conservation
Scenario 3 in
Acre Feet
Service Area
Population
2025 105,100 103,500 91,000 74,500 378,838
2030 111,300 109,600 96,600 79,300 401,049
2040 117,400 115,700 102,300 84,600 424,671
2050 122,300 120,500 106,700 88,600 447.804
2060 127,200 125,200 111,200 92,600 470,704
ANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS
[ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]
2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Chronology
April 21, 2025 Petition Initiated by Mayor Mendenhall
April 23, 2025 Planning Commission briefed on project and Growing Water
Smart initiative.
May 19, 2025 The proposal and background information was posted on the
Planning Division Open House Website.45-day Public Notice and
Utah general plan notices sent.
July 9, 2025 45-input period officially ended. No public comments or inquiry
received.
August 13, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed (based on
updated map)
August 27, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing held—Positive
Recommendation sent to City Council.
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering PLNPCM2025-00481 a general plan amendment to
Plan Salt Lake, that would formally integrate the City’s land use plans with the City's 2022
Water Master Plan. This proposal updates the City’s General Plan to comply with Utah State
Code 10-9a-403, which mandates the inclusion of a water element in Plan Salt Lake by December
31, 2025. This proposal is citywide.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council
concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting
the ordinance the same night of the public hearing.
DATE:
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Roon 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in-
person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County
Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For
more information, including Zoom connection information, please visit
www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling
the 24-hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Michaela Bell at 385-214-5311 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, or via e-mail at michaela.bell@slc.gov The petition details can be accessed at
https://www.slc.gov/planning/2025/05/20/openhouse2025-00481//.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make
requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and
other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance.
To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,
801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
RECORDS
• PC Agenda of April 23 & August 27, 2025 (Click to Access)
• PC Minutes of April 23 & August 27, 2025 (Click to Access)
• Planning Commission Staff Reports April 23 & August 27, 2025 (Click to Access
Report)
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Kate Werrett
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:November 18, 2025
RE:Parking Dimensions and Off-Street Parking Standards Manual Update
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
To align with S.B. 181 and H.B. 368, the Planning Division has reviewed the existing Off-Street Parking
Standards Manual, recommended changes, and proposed that these updated standards be codified, as required
by state code. State code requires that these amendments be codified by December 31, 2025. The purpose of the
State’s legislation is to help reduce overall construction costs, thus making housing more attainable.
Goal of the briefing: Receive details regarding changes to existing parking standards as required by state
code. At a future meeting, Council will adopt these changes to City zoning and the Off Street Parking Manual.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following summarizes the specific updates and clarifications proposed to the City’s Zoning Code and Off-
Street Parking Standards Manual. These changes reflect the necessary revisions to align local regulations with
S.B. 181 and H.B. 368:
Zoning Code Changes
- Allow tandem parking for all uses to align with S.B. 181
- If driveway parking leads to at least one stall behind the front line of the building, the driveway counts
toward the required parking for single-family, two-family, townhome, and rowhouse dwellings
- Defines “unobstructed”
Off Street Parking Manual Changes
- Allow tandem parking for all uses to align with S. B. 181
- Stylistic edits and updated references
Items NOT Changing
- Parking minimums
- Landscaping, screening, and lighting standards
- Surfacing standards and materials
- Driveway standards
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: October 18, 2025
Public Hearing: December 2, 2025
Tentative Action: December 9, 2025, or later
Page | 2
- ADA standards
- Parking standards for existing homes
The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council with a clarification to the existing
language that “when a tandem parking space is being used to fulfill the requirement for parking based on a
residential use, each of the two tandem parking stalls shall be designated for a specific residential” [unit], or
substantively similar text. The Planning Division has incorporated this recommended revision into the proposed
zoning and parking manual amendments to be considered by the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1)Parking Dimensions and Off-Street Parking Standards Manual Update
2) Impacted Existing Documents:
a)Off-Street Parking Standards Manual
b)21A.44 (particular sections: 21A.44.060.A.3 & 21A.44.060.A.15)
c)21A.62
3) Utah Code
a)S.B. 181
b)H.B. 368
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
City Council Briefing-November 18, 2025
PLNPCM2025-00358
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT//
PARKING DIMENSIONS
OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS
MANUAL UPDATE
Salt Lake City //Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
OVERVIEW
This amendment updates Salt Lake City’s parking regulations to ensure consistency
with recently adopted state laws, S.B 181 and H.B. 368, pertaining to barriers parking
may have on housing affordability.
Compliance deadline of December 31, 2025.
State Law Scope:
•Formally adopt Off-Street Parking Standards Manual
•Update tandem and driveway parking regulations
•Amend Zoning Code Section 21A.44.060
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
KEY CHANGES
Zoning Ordinance Changes:
•Allows tandem parking for all land uses
(21A.44.060.A.16)
•Allows driveway parking to count toward the
required minimum parking for single-family,
two-family, rowhouse, and townhome uses.
The driveway must lead to at least one space
behind the building front line of the building.
(21A.44.060)
•Defines 'unobstructed' in the definitions
chapter (21A.62)
Off-Street Parking Manual:
•Codifies the off-street parking manual
•Allows tandem parking for all land uses
•Stylistic and reference edits
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
PARKING BEHIND THE
FRONT LINE OF THE
BUILDING
TANDEM PARKING
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
WHAT IS NOT CHANGING
•Parking Dimensions
•Parking Minimums
•Landscaping, Screening & Lighting Standards
•Surfacing Standards or Materials
•Driveway Width Standards
•ADA Standards
•Parking Standards for Existing Homes
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
STANDARDS OF APPROVAL
21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS
•Evaluates alignment with city's purpose, goals, objectives, and policies
•Reviews compliance with zoning ordinance and district regulations
•Ensures amendment implements current best practices in urban
planning and design
•Assesses impact on city resources
•Assesses impact on adjacent properties
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS AND OFF-STREET
PARKING STANDARDS MANUAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•No anticipated detrimental impacts
•Generally, meets zoning standards
•Complies with State Law
Salt Lake City // Planning Division www.slc.gov/planning
Meagan Booth // Principal Planner
meagan.booth@slc.gov
801-535-7213
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
10/06/2025
Date Sent to Council:
10/15/2025
From:
Department *
Community and Neighborhood
Employee Name:
Booth, Meagan
E-mail
meagan.booth@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
10/08/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
10/15/2025
Subject:
Zoning Text Amendment-Citywide, Text Amendment-PLNPCM2025-00358 - Parking Dimensions & Off-Street Parking Standards Manual Update
Additional Staff Contact:
Meagan Booth, Principal Planner
Presenters/Staff Table
Meagan Booth, Principal Planner
Document Type
Ordinance
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment as presented.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
See Project Chronology
This page has intentionally been left blank
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Tammy Hunsaker
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a zoning text amendment to allow
driveway parking to count toward the minimum required off-street parking for single-family, two-family,
townhome, and rowhouse dwellings and to allow tandem parking for all land uses. This change aligns the
City’s zoning code and Off-Street Parking Standards Manual with 2025 state legislation (SB 181 and HB
368), which limits local regulation of parking design and requires engineering standards to be codified. The
proposed amendments will affect 21A.44.060.A.3, 21A.44.060.A.15, and 21A.62 of the zoning ordinance,
as well as the Off-Street Parking Standards Manual.
The changes include allowing driveway parking to count toward minimum off-street parking requirements
for single-family, two-family, townhome, and rowhouse dwellings, provided the driveway leads to at least
one parking stall behind the front line of the building. Tandem parking will also count toward the minimum
off-street parking for all land uses. Additionally, we are adding the term 'unobstructed' to the definitions
chapter as defined by State law.
Tandem parking is defined as the in-line parking of
one vehicle behind another in such a way that one
parking space can only be accessed through another
parking space. Under current standards in Salt Lake
City Code §21A.44.060, tandem parking is permitted
for residential uses in all zoning districts that require
off-street parking and may count toward minimum
parking requirements when both spaces serve the
same dwelling unit. The proposed amendment
expands this allowance to permit tandem parking for
all land uses in all zones, allowing tandem spaces to
count toward the required off-street parking
requirement regardless of the land use type. This
change provides greater design flexibility, supports
more compact and efficient site layouts, and aligns
with the City’s goals of promoting adaptable parking
design and reduced impervious surface area.
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on September 10, 2025, and recommended approval of
the amendment to the City Council, with the condition that the language be clarified to specify that tandem
parking for residential units must be assigned to a specific unit. The revised ordinance now states that
tandem parking is permitted for all uses; however, for residential dwellings, each tandem arrangement must
be assigned to a specific unit.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• July 1, 2025 - All community councils were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community
organizations. Staff presented an overview of the project to the Ballpark Community Council on August
7, 2025. No comments were submitted by the Community Councils after the presentation.
• An online open house was posted on the Planning Divisions Webpage.
• September 10, 2025 The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council, with an
amendment to Section 15, Subsection B: "If a tandem parking space is used to meet residential parking
requirements, each tandem stall must be assigned to a specific residential unit, or similar language."
Planning Staff has added these changes to the revised ordinance for the City Council.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of September 10, 2025
b) PC Minutes of September 10, 2025
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of September 10, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. ORDINANCE
This page has intentionally been left blank
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2025-00358
April 10, 2025 The Mayor signed the petition to initiate the application.
April 11, 2023 Petition PLNPCM2023-00496 was assigned to Meagan Booth, Principal Planner
and accepted by the Salt Lake City Planning Division.
April 11, 2025 Application was routed internally for department comments.
July 1, 2025 After revisions were incorporated to the text and manual the required 45-day
notice sent to all Recognized Community Organizations citywide. The early
engagement period officially began. No formal comments received.
July 8, 2025 Project posted on the City’s Online Open House webpage to solicit public
comments. None received
August 7, 2025 Community Council Review completed. Presentation given to the Ballpark
Community Council. Requested by Amy J. Hawkins, Chair, several councils
coordinated to use this meeting date due to July holiday conflicts; Ballpark
hosted the presentation at 7 pm. No additional comments were received
afterwards.
August 15, 2025 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended.
August 25, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report was posted.
August 29, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and
the State of Utah Public Notice webpage. Public hearing posted on City and State
websites; distributed via Planning Division list serve.
September 10, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing is held and makes a recommendation for
approval with one condition.
September 11, 2025 Draft Ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office
September 30, 2025 Final Ordinance received from Attorney’s Office
This page has intentionally been left blank
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2025-00358 for a Zoning Text Amendment.
Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a zoning text amendment to clarify driveway parking eligibility for single
family, two-family, and townhome-type dwellings, expand tandem parking allowances, and update parking
space dimensions to align with current engineering standards. This proposed amendment is in response to SB
181, which limits local regulations of parking design, and HB 368, which requires local engineering standards
to be codified by ordinance. The proposed amendments will affect 21A.44.060.A.3, 21A.44.060.A.15, and
21A.62 of the zoning ordinance, as well as the Off-Street Parking Standards Manual.
As part of the process, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding
the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be
given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public
hearing.
DATE: TBD
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Roon 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing an in-person opportunity to
attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street,
Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including Zoom connection information, please
visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-hour
comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments
received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Meagan Booth
at 801-535-7213 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at
meagan.booth@slc.gov . The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by
selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-01120.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and
services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the
City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Cc: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer; Tammy Hunsaker,
Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning
Director.
From: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Date: April 9, 2025
Re: Initiation of an amendment to the parking manual and zoning code to update parking
dimensions and allowance for low-scale residential uses.
The Planning Division is requesting that you initiate an amendment to the city’s adopted Off-Street
Parking Standards Manual and to the Zoning Code aligning with recently adopted state laws. The
changes are related to parking stall dimensions and allowances for single-family, two-family and
townhome-type dwellings.
Off-Street Parking Standards Manual changes
The amendment to this manual will allow tandem parking for townhomes and reduce certain parking
stall dimensions for single-family, two-family and townhome-type dwellings. These changes were
recently adopted by the state in S.B. 181 Housing Affordability Amendments. It adopts changes made
to the manual since its 2022 adoption in 2022 and as part of the off-street parking chapter re-write.
The manual was initially created as an administrative living document but state law H.B. 368 Local
Land Use Amendments, now requires an “engineering or development standard” to follow a
legislative process.
Zoning Code changes
The amendment to the ordinance (21A.44.060: Parking Location and Design) will allow driveway
parking to count towards the required number of stalls when the use of the property is single-family,
two-family or a townhome-type dwelling. The changes may include additional provisions such as a
requirement that the driveway leads to at least one stall behind the front façade of the building.
This amendment will align the parking standards with city goals and address state law. While the
aforementioned changes are the focus, other inconsistencies identified, or changes needed in 21A or
to the Parking Standards Manual may also be included in the final proposal.
A public process will be conducted, and the proposal will follow the required steps of any other text
amendment, including notification to recognized community organizations, a public hearing with the
Planning Commission and a decision by City Council.
This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If
the decided course of action is not to initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank.
Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made not to initiate
the petition.
Page 2
Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you.
Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above.
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date
Erin Mendenhall (Apr 10, 2025 15:00 MDT)
04/10/2025
Parking Dimensions - Petition Initiation_4.9.25
Final Audit Report 2025- 04-10
Created:2025-04-10
By:Michaela Oktay (michaela.oktay@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAaJYoLbh7AzlAvUgHSFAWyAMksTvvcgh3
Parking Dimensions - Petition Initiation_4.9.25" History
Document created by Michaela Oktay (michaela.oktay@slc.gov)
2025-04-10 - 3:21:08 PM GMT
Document emailed to Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov) for signature
2025-04-10 - 3:21:33 PM GMT
Email viewed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov)
2025-04-10 - 3:21:59 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Erin Mendenhall (erin.mendenhall@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-10 - 9:00:36 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-10 - 9:00:36 PM GMT
This page has intentionally been left blank
1
Project Title: Parking Dimensions & Off-Street
Parking Standards Manual Update
Petition No.: PLNPCM2025-00358
Version: 1
Date Prepared: September 25, 2025
Planning Commission Action: Recommended September 10, 2025
This proposed ordinance makes the following amendments (for summary purposes only):
• Modifies Subsection 21A.44.060.A.3:to amend the requirements to the parking manual and
zoning code to update parking dimensions and allowance for low-scale residential uses.
• Amends the Off-Street Parking Standards Manual and Zoning Code (21A.44.060) to align
with recent state legislation.
Zoning Code (21A.44.060):
• Allows tandem parking for all uses (21A.44.060).
• Counts driveway parking toward required parking if the driveway leads to at least one
stall behind the front line of the building for single-family, two-family, rowhouse, and
townhome uses (21A.44.060).
• Defines 'unobstructed' in 21A.62
Off-Street Parking Standards Manual:
• Allows tandem parking for all uses.
• Aligns the manual with House Bill 368 and codifies parking dimensions after City
Council adoption.
• Incorporates departmental comments.
• Makes minor editorial and reference updates for consistency.
Planning Note: This proposed text amendment is contingent upon the adoption and codification of
the Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning District Consolidation. The Mixed-Use (MU) zoning
ordinance was adopted by Salt Lake City on July 8, 2025, and is scheduled to take effect on
October 8, 2025.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _____9/25/25_________________
By: ____________________________
Senior City Attorney
2
Underlined text is new; text with strikethrough is proposed to be deleted. Modifications made as
part of the Planning Commission recommendation are highlighted in yellow. All other text is
existing with no proposed change.
Adopts the Salt Lake City Off-Street Parking Standards Manual to read and appear as shown in
Exhibit A attached hereto, and amends Subsections 21A.44.060.A.3 and 21A.44.060.15 and
Section 21A.62.040 as follows:
Amending Subsection 21A.44.060.3: 1
3. Parking in Front and Corner Side Yards: Location: 2
a. Parking in Required Yards: Parking stalls are prohibited in a required front yard or the 3
required corner side yard except when authorized by Section 21A.44.090. In the FR, R1, R2, 4
and SR-1A zoning districts, parking in driveways that comply with all applicable city 5
standards is allowed but shall not be used to satisfy off-street parking requirements except as 6
provided in this section. 7
8
b. Driveway Parking for single-family, two-family, townhome or rowhouse dwellings: 9
Parking in front and corner side yard areas, including on driveways, may be used to satisfy 10
off-street parking requirements when the driveway provides access to at least one parking 11
stall located behind the front line of the principal building. This provision does not override 12
any requirement in the underlying zoning district that all parking be located behind the 13
principal building. All parking must comply with the Off-Street Parking Standards Manual. 14
15
c. Parking stalls may be allowed in a provided front or corner side yard where it exceeds the 16
minimum yard requirement when: 17
1. In any zoning district found in Chapter 21A.28 Manufacturing Districts or Chapter 18
21A.32 Special Purpose Districts; or 19
2. Approved following the requirements in Section 21A.44.090; or 20
3. Authorized in the zoning district. 21
22
d. Parking for land uses that do not include a principal building shall be setback a minimum of 23
25 feet from the front or corner side lot line. The 25-foot setback shall be considered a 24
landscaped yard subject to the requirements of landscaped yards in Chapter 21A.48. 25
26
e. If this section conflicts with any standard or regulation of the underlying zoning district, the 27
provisions of the underlying zoning shall take precedence. 28
3
Amending Subsection 21A.44.060.15: 29
15. Tandem Parking: When more than one parking space is required for a residential dwelling 30
unit, the parking spaces may be designed as tandem parking spaces, provided that:Is allowed 31
for all land uses to fulfill required parking. 32
a) No more than two required spaces may be included in the tandem parking layout: and 33
Must be designed to be unobstructed. 34
b) Residential Dwelling Units: 35
1. No more than two required spaces may be included in the tandem layout; and 36
2. Each set of two tandem parking spaces layout shall be designated to a specific 37
residential unit. 38
Amending Subsection 21A.62.040 only for the purpose of adding a new definition of 39
“Unobstructed”, which shall be inserted in alphabetical order and shall read as follows: 40
Unobstructed: Refers to a parking space that has no permanent barriers such as walls, posts, 41
planters, or built-in storage that would reduce the space to smaller than the required stall 42
dimensions (9 feet by 20 feet for uncovered spaces; 10 feet by 20 feet for covered spaces). 43
Effective Date: This ordinance, if passed, shall become effective on the date of its first publication
and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake City Recorder.
(Signatures follow on the next page)
4
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________________.
Mayor’s Action: _____Approved. _____Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 202__.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance Parking Dimensions & Off-Street Parking Standards Manual Update (legislative)_v1
5
EXHIBIT A:
Salt Lake City Off-Street Parking Standards Manual
This page has intentionally been left blank
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel
DATE:November 18, 2025
RE: CLIMATE FORWARD SLC
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Goal of the briefing: To review the Department of Sustainability’s efforts to update the City’s climate plan,
known as Climate Forward SLC. Climate Forward SLC is expected to return to the Council in 2026 for formal
consideration. At this stage, no action or public hearing is required.
POLICY QUESTIONS
Federal Policy Changes & Funding: The Council may wish to ask Sustainability whether it has
identified any impediments to reaching the established renewable energy and carbon emissions
reduction goals as a result of changes to the current federal administration’s climate policy. Does the
Department foresee any changes to its awarded EPA grant funding, and if so, what contingency plans
are in place?
Implementation Costs: The Council could request that Climate Forward SLC include estimated
implementation costs for the strategies it identifies, along with recommendations for funding those
initiatives.
Page | 2
3.Coordination with Other Departments and Plans: The Council could ask Sustainability how it
intends to collaborate with other Administrative Departments to accomplish the goals laid out in
Climate Forward SLC. Additionally, the Council could ask how Climate Forward SLC will interact with
other existing plans, such as the City’s housing plan, transportation plan, or parks and open space plan.
4.Public Engagement: The Council could ask Sustainability to elaborate on its public engagement
process including how it involves communities most impacted by climate change and air pollution in
Salt Lake City.
5.Progress to Date: The Council could request a general update on the progress Salt Lake City has made
toward its renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals since adopting the joint resolutions
in 2016 and 2019.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Climate Forward SLC aims to identify the challenges Salt Lake City is likely to face due to climate change,
provide actionable strategies to address those challenges, and establish metrics to evaluate progress toward the
City’s identified climate goals. Its focus will be on key sectors including "energy, air quality, commercial and
residential buildings, waste, transportation, food systems, municipal operations, and climate resiliency (heat,
wildfire, water)."
The plan is guided by three primary goals identified by the Administration:
1. Reaffirm the City’s commitment to our 2040 Climate Goals: Reaffirm the City’s commitment to 100%
renewable electricity by 2030 and 80% emissions reduction by 2040 by aligning efforts across City
departments, community initiatives, and partner organizations.
2. Prioritize Climate Strategies that are Scalable and Equitable: Focus on strategies that cut emissions,
save money, create jobs, and build healthier, more resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the benefits of
these solutions reach those most in needs.
3. Identify Actionable Solutions and Fill Gaps: Focus on strategies that cut emissions, save money, create
jobs, and build healthier, more resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the benefits of these solutions
reach those most in needs.
Sustainability’s Climate Forward SLC planning effort is supported by the Greater Salt Lake Clean Energy and Air
Roadmap (SL-CLEAR). This initiative brings together local and regional leaders across Salt Lake and Tooele
counties to reduce air pollution. SL-CLEAR’s work is funded by a federal grant Salt Lake City received in 2023
through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grants (CPRG) program.
The Department’s on-call consultant budget has also supported Climate Forward SLC’s work. The Department
does not anticipate needing additional funding to complete the planning process.
Relevant Prior Council Actions
Joint Resolution 33 of 2016
In 2016, the Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution establishing renewable energy and carbon emissions
reduction goals for Salt Lake City. The goals included achieving 100% renewable energy for Salt Lake City
Corporation operations by 2032 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2040.
Joint Resolution 23 of 2019
In 2016, the Council and Mayor adopted a joint resolution updating its 100% renewable energy goal date to
2030.
Resolution 14 of 2020
Page | 4
In 2020, the Council adopted a resolution outlining the City Council’s expectations and legislative role to “adopt
policies and ordinances to address the present and future needs of the city and to guide growth and development
within the city.” The resolution emphasizes the importance of presenting plans to the City Council and providing
regular updates, including early in the plan’s process, to gather input and feedback.
TIMELINE
Sustainability, which began its work in August 2025, anticipates completing Climate Forward SLC within
approximately 10 months from this briefing, with a presentation of the final plan to the City Council for formal
adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Climate Forward SLC
City Council Update | November 18, 2025
Debbie Lyons, Director
Sophia Nicholas, Deputy Director
Catherine Wyffels, Sr. Air Quality and Environmental Program Manager
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
What We've Achieved
Where We're At
Today’s
Agenda
What We're Hearing
Looking Ahead
Why a Climate Plan?
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Looking ahead: What is the process?
Engagement Analysis Draft Plan Adoption Action
Fall 2025 Winter 2026 Spring 2026 Summer 2026 Ongoing
Council
Briefing
Existing
Conditions
Report
Draft Plan
Transmittal
ongoing community and partner engagement
we are
here
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Why This Matters?
Source: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-
city/2024/07/08/utah-heat-waves-longer-hotter-climate-change
Source: https://www.abc4.com/utah-weather/utah-heat-is-
cranking-up-with-record-high-temperatures-in-the-forecast/
Source: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/1/7/23543113/when-will-great-salt-lake-dry-
warning-from-experts/
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Why a
Climate
Plan?
•In 2016 and 2019, the City Council and Mayor
issued joint resolutions establishing the goals of
achieving 100% renewable energy for SLC by 2030
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80%
percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline).
•Over the past decade, we have achieved a lot,
learned a lot, and been faced with new and
evolving challenges.
It’s time to affirm our goals, refresh our approach,
and define next steps.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Why a
Climate
Plan?
•Make sure we are set up to achieve what we
said we would.
•Ensure all our climate-related efforts are
aligned.
•Identify / address gaps and inconsistencies
as well as real and perceived conflicts.
•Leverage resources and work efforts to
achieve multi-benefit outcomes.
•Formally adopt SLC’s climate action plan as
part of the city’s planning framework.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
What Is a Climate Plan?
Key Components
-Emission Reduction Targets
(80% by 2040)
-Mitigation Strategies to reach
emission reduction goal
-Adaptation Measures to respond
to climate impacts
-Monitoring and Reporting to
track progress
Examples from Other Plans
-100% Net-Zero Energy by 2040
-75% waste diverted from landfill by
2030
-50% reduction in building emissions by
2040
-30% reduction in transportation
emissions by 2030
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
SLC’s Planning Framework
PLAN SALT LAKE
•Citywide vision for growth, sustainability, and livability
through 2040
•Guiding Principle #5: Air Quality
is a “system” or “element”
plan that implements Plan
SLC, interfaces with other
system plans, and guides
policy, investment, and
action
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
SLC’s Climate Planning Framework
•The City has multiple plans and programs that support climate
priorities, but there are gaps.
•Connect SLC and Housing SLC include several strategies that
reduce the climate impact of the transportation and buildings
sectors.
•Climate Forward SLC will identify any gaps and opportunities to
enhance climate action in these sectors.
•Several plans address green spaces and climate resiliency.
•Climate Forward SLC will evaluate the need for additional strategies
to reduce heat-island effect and mitigate extreme heat.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
What
We’ve
Achieved
We have a lot to be proud of
•80 MW Elektron Solar Project provides ~80% of the City’s
municipal energy and saved $1.5 million on electricity bills
•Utah Renewable Communities – 19 govt's & RMP partnership to
achieve community-wide electricity goals
•SLC Airport LEED Gold Certified and using 100% electric ground
support equipment
•Built the country’s first two net zero fire stations
•Continued integrating alternative transportation
infrastructure into major roadway projects
•Purchased hundreds of alternative fuel and electric vehicles
And much, much more!
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Our Goals The update of SLC’s climate plan is guided
by three overarching goals:
Reaffirm or refine the City’s
commitment to our 2040 climate
goals
Prioritize climate strategies that are
scalable and equitable
Identify actionable solutions and fill
gaps
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Delivering Benefits That Matter
Climate Forward SLC aims to:
Help save money and create jobs
Improve air quality
Reduce the emissions that contribute to climate
change
Prepare us to be more resilient in a hotter, drier
climate
Make our communities cleaner and healthier
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Areas of Focus
The updated plan will build on the structure and success of
Climate Positive 2040 (our administrative plan from 2016) to
address emissions and adaptation goals related to:
Energy
Transportation
Buildings
Food
Waste
Climate Resiliency
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Salt Lake
Clean
Energy and
Air Roadmap
(SL-CLEAR)
EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants
(CPRG) program:
Draft Climate Action Plan for the Salt Lake
MSA is available for comment
Plan was informed by input from local
governments, community members, and
technical experts
This planning effort is leveraged to develop
Climate Forward SLC
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Where We
Are
The Existing Conditions Report
summarizes issues and opportunities
that will drive the plan update.
•Our Changing Context
•Climate Hazards + Vulnerability
•Community GHG Inventory
•Existing Policies, Programs + Plans
•Community Input
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Our Changing Context
•Our geographic location defines us,
but also creates climate challenges.
•We are growing more rapidly than most places.
•We are becoming increasingly diverse.
•Housing affordability is a critical issue that is
affecting many of our residents. Our climate
solutions need to make living here more affordable.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Climate Hazards + Vulnerability
•Our primary climate risks are driven by rising temperatures and
changing precipitation patterns.
•We are among the top three metro areas for urban heat island
intensity, with the west side of the city disproportionately affected by
extreme heat. Urban development exacerbates this problem.
•Drought is a long-term challenge and leads to competition between
water for human consumption and for agriculture and landscaping.
•Low-income communities are more vulnerable to climate hazards
due to socio-economic conditions, health disparities, pollution exposure,
and inadequate infrastructure.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Community GHG Inventory
•Community greenhouse gas emissions
fell 11% from 2009 to 2024, primarily due
to a shift toward cleaner energy resources.
•Per capita emissions declined 25% from
2009 to 2024, illustrating that local economic
and population growth have been partially
decoupled from emissions.
•Accelerated uptake of decarbonization
solutions (renewable energy and building
and vehicle electrification) are key to meeting
our goal.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Outreach
Summary
Community Outreach Efforts
(July – October)
Online Public Survey - 720 responses
Intercept Surveys - 215 responses
•75% at westside locations
Tabling events - 15+ events
Next Business online survey
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
What We’re
Hearing
Survey respondents report they
are generally well-informed about
climate change and its impacts.
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Respondents are most
concerned about drought
and lack of water, and air
pollution and its impacts.
Public Input on Climate Concerns
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Public Input on Climate Priorities
•Making it easier to insulate their
homes and save money
•Providing 100 percent clean,
renewable electricity for homes
and businesses
•Increasing street trees in their
neighborhoods
•Improving access to transit,
walking, and biking
Climate Forward SLC | Our Climate Action Plan
Looking ahead: What is the process?
Engagement Analysis Draft Plan Adoption Action
Fall 2025 Winter 2026 Spring 2026 Summer 2026 Ongoing
Council
Briefing
Existing
Conditions
Report
Draft Plan
Transmittal
ongoing community and partner engagement
we are
here
SALT LAKE CITY TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair
Submission Date:
09/25/2025
Date Sent to Council:
09/30/2025
From:
Department *
Sustainability
Employee Name:
O'Malley, Monica
E-mail
monica.omalley@slc.gov
Department Director Signature
Director Signed Date
09/25/2025
Chief Administrator Officer's Signature
Chief Administrator Officer's Signed Date
09/29/2025
Subject:
Climate Forward SLC
Additional Staff Contact:Presenters/Staff Table
Sophia Nicholas, Sustainability Deputy Director, Sophia.Nicholas@slc.gov
Catherine Wyffels, Air Quality & Environmental Program Manager, Catherine.Wyffels@slc.gov
Document Type
Information Item
Budget Impact?
Yes
No
Recommendation:
The Department of Sustainability is informing the Council about Climate Forward SLC, an effort to update the City’s climate plan, and invites discussion on the plan development and public engagement processes.
Background/Discussion
See first attachment for Background/Discussion
Will there need to be a public hearing for this item?*
Yes
No
Public Process
This page has intentionally been left blank
Climate Forward SLC Transmittal
Background
The Sustainability Department is submitting this transmittal to inform City Council of
development of the Climate Forward SLC plan, which will update the City’s climate strategy
and will be proposed for formal Council adoption in 2026. This effort will identify key
priorities to help the City reach our 2040 greenhouse gas reduction goal, reduce air
pollution, and build more resilient neighborhoods. The Plan will be accompanied by a list of
possible near-term actions, which the Sustainability Department will use to guide our
efforts over the next five years.
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City is committed to protecting the public health and safety of its residents,
including ensuring access to clean air, clean water and a livable environment. As such, the
City has a responsibility to take meaningful action to address climate change and mitigate
its impacts on residents, businesses, and government operations. We are already
experiencing the consequences of a warming and drying climate. Over the past century,
Utah’s average temperature has increased by more than 2.5°F, and over the last 50 years,
the rate of warming has been approximately twice the global average. These changes are
expected to increase and will have far-reaching implications for the City, intensifying the
threats of drought, wildfires, and flooding. Climate impacts include:
- Extreme Heat: Extreme heat is the deadliest form of natural disaster and is
often referred to as a “silent killer.” This is one of the most urgent climate threats
in our region with temperatures expected to rise in the coming years. The effects
of rising temperatures are not experienced equally. Vulnerable populations who
are at greatest risk include people who are unhoused, living in places with little
or no access to green spaces or air conditioning, and people with underlying
health conditions.
- Drought: Drought is another high priority risk with potential region-wide effects
on the water supply and the health of the Great Salt Lake. Warmer temperatures
will likely extend dry periods. Additionally, we expect to see declines in snowfall,
snow cover, and the duration of the snow season. These trends will lead to more
frequent and severe drought conditions. Drought conditions not only have
consequences for water security, but also for public health due to increased dust
pollution.
- Wildfires: Wildfire risk is projected to increase as well, but the threat is mainly
concentrated in higher elevation areas. However, smoke from fires can have
consequences for the air quality of the entire region, putting public health at
risk. Overall, these events pose significant threats to infrastructure, public safety,
and can result in substantial economic losses for both individuals and
government entities.
- Floods: Flooding, while less likely, poses significant risk along the Jordan River
and in canyon areas, but impact of flooding on water resources could affect
many people. Flood events can cause extensive damage to homes, roads,
schools, and other critical infrastructure, and pose a serious threat to human
life.
Salt Lake City’s general plan, “Plan Salt Lake”, acknowledges the City’s commitment to
sustainable growth and development:
“Salt Lake City is committed to sustainable growth and development. The
Sustainable Salt Lake – Plan 2015 reflects our current broad and ambitious agenda
to protect our resources, enhance our assets, and establish a path toward greater
resiliency and vitality for every aspect of our community. Plan Salt Lake builds upon
the principles and goals identified in Sustainable Salt Lake, incorporating
sustainability principles throughout the Plan with the goal of livability and making
our City one of the greenest, most inclusive, and economically viable cities in the
country.”
Following the adoption of the general plan, the City made specific climate commitments
with the adoption of joint Mayor-Council resolution 33 of 2016, establishing goals to
achieve 100% renewable energy for our community by 2032 and to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions 80% percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline). In 2019, the Mayor and
Council adopted Joint Resolution 23 of 2019 which moved the target date for 100%
renewable energy up two years, to 2030 to comply with state code (§54-17-901 to -909)
adopted in the 2019 legislative session.
Since this initial commitment, the City has made substantial progress toward these goals,
and the Sustainability Department has documented climate strategies through
development of Administrative strategy documents such as the Climate Positive 2040 plan.
In 2023, Salt Lake City received funding through EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grants
(CPRG) program to develop a climate plan for the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA), called The Greater Salt Lake Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR). The
Sustainability Department has been leading this effort with input and support from local
governments across Salt Lake County and Tooele counties along with a diverse set of
stakeholders across multiple sectors in the region. Sustainability is leveraging this larger
planning effort to develop Climate Forward SLC, a climate plan specifically for Salt Lake
City.
Climate Forward SLC Overview
The accompanying handout provides an overview of the Climate Forward SLC plan process.
Climate Forward SLC will identify the challenges and opportunities the City will face
because of climate change, focus on actionable strategies, and establish metrics to
evaluate progress toward our climate goals. Specifically, the plan will identify strategies and
metrics in key climate sectors such as energy, air quality, commercial and residential
buildings, waste, transportation, food systems, municipal operations, and climate resiliency
(heat, wildfire, water).
The plan will build upon the guiding principles established in Plan Salt Lake, particularly the
air quality and natural environment principles. In addition, the Climate Forward plan will
acknowledge the work of other City departments that encompass climate and align with
the priorities of this effort. It will also complement and, where appropriate, defer to other
City plans such as Housing SLC, Growing Water Smart, Urban Forestry Action Plan,
Reimagine Nature, and Connect SLC.
For additional context, examples of climate plans that have been formally adopted by other
cities, including in Utah, include:
- Provo’s Conservation and Resiliency Plan
- Moab’s Sustainability Action Plan
- City of Hopkins Climate Solutions Plan
- Boise’s Climate Action Roadmap
Scope of Work and Timeline
The Climate Forward SLC planning effort is supported by the grant-funded SL-CLEAR
planning efforts and supplemented by Sustainability’s on-call consultant budget. The
Department does not anticipate requiring additional budget allocation in FY26 to complete
the planning process. The scope of work for developing this plan includes:
- Communication: Develop project website and other communication materials.
- Engagement: Conduct community engagement through a public survey and
intercept surveys; seek feedback from other City Departments, partner
organizations, and the business community.
- Plan Development: Prepare existing conditions report. Draft, design, and write
the plan, including working drafts and final version. Respond to and address
internal and public comments received.
- Near Term Action Plan: Identify priorities and actions needed to meet climate
goals, which can serve as a resource to strategically guide the City’s work and
inform budget decisions for the next five years.
- Plan Adoption Process: Follow required plan adoption process, including
obtaining Mayor’s approvals, informing and engaging City Council, and
presenting the plan to the City Council for potential adoption.
The project is expected to take approximately 12 months from this request.
A robust public process is central to this plan. Sustainability has initiated outreach efforts
specific to Climate Forward SLC this summer, which builds on other climate-related
engagement the Department has conducted over the past two years. Below is a summary
of the past, ongoing, and anticipated future engagement activities. The feedback gathered
through these initiatives will directly inform development of this plan.
Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap (SL-CLEAR) [2023- present]
The SL-CLEAR plan, being developed through EPA’s CPRG program, incorporates feedback
from a variety outreach efforts, including:
- An online public survey published in 2024 that received over 900 responses.
- Extensive engagement with jurisdictional partners and organizational
stakeholders in 2023 and 2024 around air quality, climate change, energy, and
transportation issues in the region.
- Convening regular meetings with an Environmental Justice (EJ) Committee
formed with University Neighborhood Partners to involve Westside residents in
the development of the plan, including identifying concerns related to climate
change impacts and prioritizing different mitigation strategies. These meetings
are ongoing.
- Invited the Mayor and Councilmembers of participating jurisdictions to
participate in informal interviews in Fall 2024. The purpose of these interviews
was to inform the approach and priorities of the SL-Clear plan. For Salt Lake City,
we interviewed the Mayor and three Councilmembers as part of this effort.
Public Survey and Tabling Activities (Ongoing)
The Sustainability Department has begun seeking community input through an online
survey, which is currently open to the public. The primary objective of this survey is to
collect feedback regarding our residents’ awareness of and concerns about the impacts of
climate change, assess familiarity with various climate solutions, and help identify
community priorities to guide the Climate Forward SLC plan development.
In addition to the survey, we have developed tabling activities designed to facilitate
conversations with residents about climate-related issues and to better understand their
priorities. The insights gathered through these tabling events are closely aligned with the
survey, and we continue to encourage residents to complete the full survey.
To ensure broad and representative participation, we will review respondent demographics
weekly. This will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of our survey distribution and
promotional strategies and make adjustments as needed.
The survey is expected to remain open through October 31, 2025.
Intercept Surveys (early fall)
Beginning in September, Sustainability is conducting intercept surveys at various locations
throughout the community. The primary objective of these surveys is to gather input on
residents’ awareness of and concerns regarding the impacts of climate change, as well as
their familiarity with a range of climate solutions.
External Stakeholders (September-January)
Sustainability plans to engage organizations that serve underrepresented communities, as
well as environmental advocacy groups, to inform them about this planning initiative and
encourage them to share the survey through their communication networks. We will also
seek input from the business community through a survey to better understand the
perspectives and priorities of businesses in the City. As the plan development progresses,
these organizations and members of the business community will also be invited to
participate in targeted discussions to help shape the plan’s priorities.
Community Councils and Internal Stakeholders (September-October)
Sustainability plans to share our survey through community councils, the Mayor’s
community liaisons, and other internal partners. We will offer to present at Community
Council public meetings to talk about our process. The draft plan will be shared through
Community councils and community organizations, inviting residents to view and comment
on the draft plan during the formal public comment period.
Formal Public Comment Period
The public will be invited to provide input on the draft plan during a 45-day public
comment period, likely in Spring 2026.
Next Steps
Sustainability’s intention is to develop a climate plan that City Council may consider for
formal adoption. In pursuit of this objective, the timeline and process described in this
transmittal are intended to follow the requirements for a Title 19 adopted plan, but we
welcome further discussion with the City Council this fall about the appropriate adoption
process the Department should follow.
August 26, 2025 • Mayor Mendenhall signed the initiation petition for this
plan, completing the initial step in the formal adoption
process.
• Informational transmittal sent to City Council.
Fall 2025 • Public engagement efforts continue through surveys.
• Public input is reviewed.
• Prepare existing conditions report.
• Establish appropriate plan adoption process.
Winter 2025-26 • Send informational update to City Council, sharing existing
conditions report and summary of public input.
Spring 2026 • Send informational update to City Council sharing draft plan
to be proposed for public comment.
Summer 2026 • Present final draft to Planning Commission for
recommendation.
• Send briefing to City Council with final draft plan, and
Planning Commission and Mayor’s recommendations.
• Present final draft plan at a City Council meeting for
potential adoption.
Discussion:
The Sustainability Department is open to discussing and receiving feedback from the City
Council on the plan development and adoption process, and priority climate issues.
This page has intentionally been left blank
What is Climate Forward SLC?
In 2016, Salt Lake City adopted a joint Mayor-Council
resolution to achieve 100% renewable energy for our
community by 2032 and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
80% percent by 2040 (compared to a 2009 baseline). In 2019,
the City moved its target date for 100% renewable energy up
two years, to 2030.
Since then, we have achieved a lot, learned a lot, and been
faced with new and evolving challenges. We are now taking the
next step in Climate Forward SLC—to affirm the City’s climate
goals, refresh our approach, and focus on the critical steps we
need to take in the next five years.
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
We are updating the plan and will present it to City Council for
adoption in 2026. The plan will guide City staff, investments,
and partnerships across key areas like energy, buildings,
transportation, and waste. It will also address emerging issues
that are impacting our communities as we face a hotter,
drier climate—looking at food system resiliency, water, heat,
and green spaces. Finally, we’re exploring how these efforts
can support more affordable living and help grow a strong
economy with good jobs and a well-trained workforce.
OUR COMMITMENT
TO A SUSTAINABLE
SALT LAKE CITY
Plan Salt Lake, adopted
in 2015, defined the city’s
commitment to “protect
our resources, enhance
our assets, and establish
a path toward greater
resiliency and vitality
for every aspect of our
community.”
Climate Forward SLC is
our next step in living up
to that commitment.
(Left) Biking and walking through shady, tree-filled Liberty Park; (Center) Robin San Pedro enjoying fresh greens
from a neighborhood garden that received an SLC Food Microgrant. Photo credit: Alexandra Parvaz;
(Right) Rooftop solar installed on an SLCgov facility
THE EFFORT IS GUIDED BY
THREE OVERARCHING GOALS:
Reaffirm the City’s commitment to our
2040 Climate Goals
Reaffirm the City’s commitment to 100%
renewable electricity by 2030 and 80%
emissions reduction by 2040 by aligning
efforts across City departments, community
initiatives, and partner organizations.
Prioritize Climate Strategies that are
Scalable and Equitable
Focus on strategies that cut emissions, save
money, create jobs, and build healthier, more
resilient neighborhoods. Ensure that the
benefits of these solutions reach those most
in needs.
Identify Actionable Solutions and Fill Gaps
Develop actionable solutions that tie long-
term targets with short-term decisions and
budgets. Fill in gaps missing or ongoing
actions needed to meet City’s climate goals.
HOW CAN THE
COMMUNITY
GET INVOLVED?
We have launched an online survey and we
are doing pop-ups at community events this
summer and fall to raise awareness, promote
the survey, and seek input on community
priorities. We are also working with our
Environmental Justice Resident Committee
to ensure we hear all voices. There will be
additional opportunities as the draft plan
comes together to discuss what we all can do
to achieve our community’s goals.
SLCgreen staff member Salvador Brown gathering
feedback on the Climate Forward plan.
WHAT’S THE TIMELINE?
Reflection
Spring 2025
• What’s worked?
• Opportunity areas?
• Goals update?
Engagement
Summer and
Fall 2025
• Community
survey
• Intercept
surveys• Tabling
• Internal
stakeholder
input
Draft Plan
Fall 2025 and
Winter 2026
• Element Plan
• Action Plan
• Inter-
departmental review
Adoption
Spring and
Summer 2026
• Public
comment
• Final Draft Plan
• Planning Committee hearing
• City Council
adoption
Action
Ongoing
• Investments
• Partnerships
Questions?
Contact Sophia Nicholas (sophia.nicholas@slc.gov)
or Catherine Wyffels (catherine.wyffels@slc.gov)
This page has intentionally been left blank
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
09/22/2025
Date Sent To Council:
09/23/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Library Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Janice Kimball to the Library Board for a 3 year term starting on the
date of City Council advice and consent and ending on June 30th.
Janice Kimball currently lives in District 5.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
10/17/2025
Date Sent To Council:
10/20/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Austin Whitehead to the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban
Forestry Advisory Board for a 3 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent .
Austin Whitehead currently lives in District 5.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor KIM SHELLEY
Director of Public Lands
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104
www.slc.gov/parks/
PHONE 801-972-7800
FAX 801-972-7847
October 16, 2025
Dear Mayor Erin Mendenhall,
We are pleased to share our formal recommendation for Austin Whitehead as the District 5
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board representative.
Austin Whitehead is currently pursuing his Master’s degree in City and Metropolitan Planning
at the University of Utah. Austin is deeply passionate about ensuring that outdoor spaces are
accessible and welcoming to everyone. Austin actively advocates for community use of parks and
trail systems, encouraging residents to connect with and enjoy these shared spaces. His
commitment to park safety and community engagement makes him an excellent choice to
represent District 5.
We respectfully ask for your consideration and support of Austin Whitehead's appointment as
the District 5 representative on the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory
Board.
Respectfully,
Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director
Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director for Public Lands
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
10/17/2025
Date Sent To Council:
10/20/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Thomas Merrill to the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban
Forestry Advisory Board for a 3 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent .
Thomas Merrill currently lives in District 4.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor KIM SHELLEY
Director of Public Lands
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104
www.slc.gov/parks/
PHONE 801-972-7800
FAX 801-972-7847
October 16, 2025
Dear Mayor Erin Mendenhall,
We are pleased to share our formal recommendation for Thomas Merrill as the District 4 Parks,
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board representative.
Thomas Merrill brings extensive experience in community advocacy, particularly within the
downtown area of District 4. He has a deep understanding of the neighborhood’s needs and
priorities, informed by his years of dedicated service and experience.
From 2018 to 2024, Thomas served on the Downtown Community Council, including the last
two years as Council Chair. During his tenure, he consistently demonstrated strong leadership
and a commitment to representing Salt Lake City’s downtown families.
We respectfully ask for your consideration and support of Thomas Merrill's appointment as the
District 4 representative on the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board.
Respectfully,
Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director
Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director for Public Lands
SALT LAKE CITY BOARD MEMBER TRANSMITTAL
To:
Salt Lake City Council Chair Submission Date:
10/17/2025
Date Sent To Council:
10/20/2025
From:
Otto, Rachel
Subject: Board appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban Forestry Advisory Board
Recommendation:
The Administration recommends the Council approve the appointment of Christian Chavez to the Parks, Natural Lands, Trails, and Urban
Forestry Advisory Board for a 3 year term starting on the date of City Council advice and consent .
Christian Chavez currently lives in District 4.
Approved:*
Otto, Rachel
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
KIM SHELLEY
Director of Public Lands
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH PHONE 801-972-7800
October 16, 2025
Dear Mayor Erin Mendenhall,
We are pleased to share our formal recommendation for Christian Chavez as an At-Large Parks,
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Trails Advisory Board representative.
Christian Chavez is a dedicated advocate for West Side residents, drawing on his strong personal
connections to those neighborhoods to understand their unique needs and priorities.
In addition to his advocacy for the West Side, Christian prioritizes making the downtown district
a welcoming and secure environment where families can live, gather, recreate, and enjoy
accessible green spaces. His approach emphasizes both community well-being and the
importance of creating inclusive outdoor spaces that foster connection and pride across the city.
We respectfully ask for your consideration and support of Christian Chavez’s appointment as an
At-Large representative on the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry & Advisory Board.
Respectfully,
Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director
Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director for Public Lands